Many Labour and Tory peers are fiercely opposed to Jack Straw's proposal to allow police to stop people from leaving Britain simply because they had a suspicion that they might cause trouble at a football match.

The Home Secretary will publish a draft Bill tomorrow and is meeting peers and MPs next week in the hope of persuading them to support his plan to get it on to the statute book by the end of the month. But Lord Tebbit's comments show that the proposals have alarmed even politicians who are not normally associated with civil liberties campaigning.

The Government is now relying on the Tory Party's commitment to supporting the legislation, which is meant to be in place in time for England's next football international against France in September. However, the Tories have only limited control of their backbenchers in the Lords where an alliance of Law Lords and Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers may push through significant amendments.

Lord Tebbit told The Telegraph yesterday: "The Government would be wise to consider that this might be described as police state legislation. One of the marks of a police state is that the word of a policeman can be taken as the word of God and the Government is proposing that people who have been convicted of nothing can be prevented from travelling on the word of a police officer."

Related Articles

Lord Tebbit, who was often depicted as one of the most authoritarian of Lady Thatcher's Cabinet ministers in the Eighties, said Tony Blair and Mr Straw had been inspired by the lack of German hooligans during the Euro 2000 tournament.

"They asked what the German police did and they were told: 'We have a lot of information on our computer and the police can take anyone's passport away on the basis of that information.' Well, you may remember that they had a similar arrangement for Jews in the Thirties."

Lord Tebbit said peers from all sides of the Lords shared his concerns and he predicted that Mr Straw would have to accept changes if he wanted to get the Bill through. "If you find people like me coming up alongside the libertarian wing of the Liberal Party, then they ought to be concerned."

Lord Borrie, a Labour peer, said yesterday there were "significant difficulties" with the Bill, such as whether it was compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. He predicted that it would not get through Parliament in its present form before the summer recess. "These questions all take time to consider and I do not know how the Government thinks it can get through those debates in both Houses by the end of July."

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, a Tory former Home Office minister, and Lord Windlesham, Tory former Leader of the Lords, are among other peers who have already expressed doubts about Mr Straw's plans.

In the Commons yesterday, Mr Blair claimed that the comments made by Tory peers in the Lords undermined William Hague's promise to support the Bill. Mr Blair said: "He demanded emergency legislation. He would give it a fair passage [through Parliament]. Well, we now know that, having called for that emergency legislation, he is not prepared to bring his people in the House of Lords into line to get it through."

In a statement issued later, the Tories said they would support "any sensible measures" to tackle hooligans but left a loophole that could be used to justify obstructive tactics in the Lords. "Our support comes with a very clear warning that the devil would be in the detail of the Government's proposals and that we were not prepared to roll over and let bad legislation pass without a wide-ranging debate in both Houses of Parliament."

The proposal to let the police stop people with convictions travelling abroad to football matches is only one of the measures that Mr Straw is proposing. The others, which are less controversial, could be passed with much less opposition. Some legislation will be held up until after the summer recess to make time for the Bill, which could take two or three days in each House.

The Government will be under presssure to get all its legislation through the Lords in the spill-over period after the summer before the Queen's Speech, and some peers suspect a Bill might be lost. One theory is that Mr Straw would be quite happy for the Freedom of Information Bill to be dropped through lack of time. But other Lords sources said there was always a squeeze at this time of year and that there was no serious threat to Labour's programme.